Rebane's Ruminations
October 2011
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

AlAwlaki A lot of people are hyper-ventilating about the CIA’s recent killing of a couple of prime ragheads, Al-Awlaki and his pal Samir Khan.  Both were US citizens when they died from a direct hit by a Hellfire missile.  Both spent a major part of their adult lives in the Al Qaida leadership planning and successfully goading other radical Muslims to murder innocent Americans.  President Obama took justifiable pride in terminating these two killers.

Al-Awlaki and Khan were long-time self-declared and confirmed enemies of western civilization, and everything we stand for.  They made war on us, and thus were enemy combatants active in a region rife with people like themselves.  Why these traitors were still US citizens is a question we can deal with another time.  But can the government actively pursue and kill people like these without violating some yet to be defined moral principles?  I would argue a definite yes.

The government daily pursues and purposely kills US citizens for cause and by mistake.  And these dead are pikers when compared with the likes of Al-Awlaki.  There is no moral outcry when a SWAT team breaks into the wrong civilian home and mows down its resident(s) – they got the wrong address, next case please.  We have no problem incinerating people by the dozens in places like Waco.  There is no special due process brought to bear for a police sniper to kill a pregnant woman whom he sees through a curtained window of a mountain cabin in Montana.  And these kinds of killings – on purpose, accidental, in error, you name it – go on constantly.  We do give a nod to the relatives, and say we’re sorry when “mistakes were made”.

But now to agonize over the morality of finally killing this Al Qaida sumbich, after publicly hunting him for the last several years, seems a little beyond ludicrous – ‘Oh crap, we finally hit what we’ve been shooting at; did we now do a bad thing?’  If it was wrong and immoral, why wasn’t the hunt for him called off when it was first launched and announced in all the media?  Wasn’t the hunt itself and the several missed attempts to nail him then already immoral?  Or is this anguish a part some other agenda that deserves our attention?

[3oct2011 update]  Berkeley law professor John Yoo writes in today’s WSJ that “American citizens have never been considered immune from lethal force when they take up arms against their country.”  In his piece ‘From Gettysburg to Anwar Al-Awlaki’ he takes a broader historical look at how our government has used lethal force against its citizens.

Posted in , , ,

103 responses to “Morally Killing Al-Awlaki (updated 3oct2011)”

  1. Ben Emery Avatar

    Mickey,
    Lets say all of your “yes” answers were true.
    “if drilling started there today, wouldn’t be into peak production until around 2025. It would reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by $0.57 cents and a gallon of gasoline by $0.14 cents, according to a U.S. Dept. of Energy report at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr/pdf/sroiaf(2005)04.pdf.”
    What do we do in the mean time?
    The answer to your exit question falls under the category of “cutting your nose off to spite your face”.
    I try to stay off of the environmental issues at RR because I will be attacked personally instead of the focus remaining on the issue but here we go. The US is around 5% of the worlds population but consumes and produces 25% of the worlds resources and pollution, this is not a sustainable model especially when the very same model is being exported and implemented into 3 billion of the developing population. It would take somewhere in the range of 5 to 7 earth resources to sustain a US type of consumption rate for the entire planets population. That is why other nations governments are aggressively moving towards alternatives. Conservation and renewables are the only energy we should be putting huge amounts of investment and energy towards if we want to remain relevant in the global market.

    Like

  2. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    Ben, does renewables include burning firewood in the stove on a chilly morning? Last I heard timber is the county’s most renewable resource.

    Like

  3. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Paul, removing the wretched and erroneous EPA CO2 endangerment finding would be a fine way to start.

    Like

  4. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, end the “permitorium” in practice (make permitting process realistic, efficient, less political)
    Provide tax breaks for domestic oil companies (including service companies)
    Decreased gas taxes collected at domestic supplied pumps.
    Call off the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/).
    more later…

    Like

  5. Ben Emery Avatar

    Paul,
    You and I know what “Turn the oil companies loose” means.
    This hits at another environmental issue since I let the cat out of the bag already. Global Insurance Companies whose livelihood depends on risk assessment have come to the conclusion the global warming/ climate change is happening.
    Munich Re
    http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/current/flooding_in_china/default.aspx
    DANGEROUS EXPOSURE: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING ON PRIVATE AND FEDERAL
    http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/110s/35525.txt
    Earnest & Young
    http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Media—Press-Release—Strategic-Risk-to-Insurance-Industry

    Like

  6. Ben Emery Avatar

    Bill,
    How many years did your firewood have to mature? Did you replace the tree that was burned so you grandchildren could have the same luxury? It is funny that you mentioned wood/ timber because trees are the product and storage centers of solar energy.

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE – It seems that you are of a mind that there are no regulatory impediments to developing more domestic energy sources and permitting a more facile use of Canadian fossil fuels (e.g. the proposed pipeline across the Great Plains to Texas refineries). Your approach in such denials seems to be one that you and others of the left have used before – if you repeat a widely substantiated criticism of the Obama administration, then it is of no merit unless you have the chapter and verse of all the legal and regulatory materials at your beck and call. These are citations that employ literally thousands of private and government lawyers 24/7 in an attempt to decipher them, and when they do, their several interpretations are so far apart that adjudication by the courts is the usual remedy. And you are asking for specifics here in this comment stream??!!
    Let’s keep it simple. The US uses crude oil at about 20M bbl/day of which we produce about 5.4M bbl/day.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production
    The recent uptick in oil (not gas) production ballyhooed by the left is due Obama’s re-election politics and the recession. Oil production development takes years. He has finally released for production the sources that were explored, set-up, and approved under Bush2, and then sat on by the Dems. Now, after over-reacting to the Gulf oil spill, it is politic for the community organizer to show that he’s the ‘energy president’ by finally getting out of the way a little of the legacy energy development he inherited.
    The Dems have done NOTHING to permit our energy companies to explore, identify, and plan new fields needed in the future. The US Chamber of Commerce and the EIA tell us that if the feds would just permit production of what is already in the pipeline, then we would quickly add another 4M bbl/day and about 550K permanent jobs to our economy. But this would enrage the progressive base and waste a carefully constructed crisis.
    Similar stories could be told about shale gas production and increased purchases of Canadian fuels. Arguing that American oil companies want to limit production and watch the money go to the mid-east requires belief in another agenda, or …?

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I don’t exactly know what that means Ben. I would like an elaboration from George since he made the statement. As it stands right now it’s little more than a colorful statement.
    Yes, the insurance companies are a big factor when it comes to the longterm anticipated effects of global warming. When they start to not insuring coastal property people will panic and property values will tumble.
    It’s already starting to happen
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-warming-no-hoax-to-insurance-companies-2011-09-09?link=MW_latest_news
    “NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — When it comes to global warming, it’s a tough call deciding whose hot air to believe: Al Gore or those AM radio right-wingers who call it hoax.
    Me? I go with the insurance industry. If anyone is going to feel a rise in global temperature — and the destructive weather it causes around the planet — it’s the people who have to pay for the damage.
    And here’s what insurance companies are reporting to state insurance commissioners:
    “Genworth recognizes that climate change poses significant potential risks to the environment, the global economy and to human health and well being. We also recognize that human activity contributes to global warming.” — Genworth Life Insurance Co. of New York “………..
    You need to read the whole thing

    Like

  9. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Global Warming?
    I’m afarid of Global Warming.
    Is there any chance I can pay more money and stop it?
    Please tell me we still have a chance…it’s not too late, is it?
    Please take all my money….PLEASE!

    Like

  10. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    To pick one specific issue you raised.
    Do you know the route of the Keystone Pipeline? It travels over the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies the eight states it sits over plus neighboring states with their drinking, industrial, and agriculture water. I have read around 20 million people directly and who knows how many indirectly. This specific aquifer is recharged by rain water and snowmelt.
    Here is an excerpt from the water encyclopedia on the importance Ogallala Aquifer
    “The Ogallala Aquifer, whose total water storage is about equal to that of Lake Huron in the Midwest, is the single most important source of water in the High Plains region, providing nearly all the water for residential, industrial, and agricultural use. Because of widespread irrigation, farming accounts for 94 percent of the groundwater use. Irrigated agriculture forms the base of the regional economy. It supports nearly one-fifth of the wheat, corn, cotton, and cattle produced in the United States. Crops provide grains and hay for confined feeding of cattle and hogs and for dairies. The cattle feedlots support a large meatpacking industry. Without irrigation from the Ogallala Aquifer, there would be a much smaller regional population and far less economic activity.
    Because of the Ogallala, the High Plains is the leading irrigation area in the Western Hemisphere. Overall, 5.5 million hectares (nearly 13.6 million acres) are irrigated in the Ogallala region. The leading state irrigating from the Ogallala is Nebraska (46%), followed by Texas (30%) and Kansas (14%).”
    Read more: Ogallala Aquifer – depth, important, system, source http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html#ixzz1ZqkGaeSf
    Do you not see the potential man made catastrophe being set up?

    Like

  11. Ben Emery Avatar

    Here is a general observations of a strategic flaw in Mickey’s/ RR plan.
    1) The US does go off of the world oil supply and Georges numbers are correct in US consumption of around 20 million barrels per day, the global rate is in the 80 million range. The US rate dropped over the last two years at its peak it was around 22 million.
    2) The rest of the developing world are increasing their consumption. What is happening in Sudan and Darfur has to do with China’s oil problem. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080314_430126.htm
    3) The rise of the BRIC nations along with the systematic financial coups (government take over through debt)taking place by central banks is another indicator for rough times ahead. As the BRIC’s are increasing their influence we are losing ours as an international leader.

    Like

  12. Mikey McD Avatar

    Obviously more wars/deaths in the middle east is the way to go. There are no other options. There is no way we could build refineries closer to the source. The only way to transport the oil is inches away from the aqueduct. War is the best answer.
    Where’s the sarcasm font when you need it?

    Like

  13. Mikey McD Avatar

    ‘Today’ thanks to the central planners at The FED American savers are making ZERO on their savings. What about offering tax incentives (similar to Muni bonds) that allow dividends/interest paid on energy infrastructure to be tax free or even deductible?
    Oil independence is critical to the economic growth and peace on earth.

    Like

  14. Ben Emery Avatar

    Mickey there are many other options. I would only edit your last comment with this
    Energy independence is critical to the economic growth and peace on earth. We need multiple sources of energy and work more towards conservation.

    Like

  15. Russ Steele Avatar
    Russ Steele

    Ben,
    One thing about insurance companies, they like to insure people for things that are not going to happen like global warming. It is good income and the risk goes down with every passing month, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years, and the trend is downward since 2003. Therefore, hyping global warming and the need for GW insurance is a good bet for the insurance companies, in fact Henny Penny Insurance is a real money maker for insurance companies. They just need to keep up the hoax going and stop people from knowing the real truth. Our climate is controlled by the sun, oceans, jet stream and clouds and humans have not control over any of them. We live on a planet in a universe that is chaotic, and crap happens from time to time and we have no control over where and when the next event will happen. According to the ice cores, the time from human compatible weather to the next ice age was about ten to forty years, less than a generation.

    Like

  16. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    In response to “PaulE – It seems that you are of a mind that there are no regulatory impediments to developing more domestic energy sources and permitting a more facile use of Canadian fossil fuels (e.g. the proposed pipeline across the Great Plains to Texas refineries).”
    I never said anything to imply that response. Of course there are “regulatory impediments” as there should be. Are you proposing there should be none? I wanted to get some idea from you about which are appropriate and which are not. That can be the basis of an intelligent conversation.
    As an example should we allow offshore drilling in California? That’s a good place to start to see what your threshold is. Are the increased regulations in place after the Exxon Valdez disaster appropriate? Do we need more regulations after the Gulf oil spill or do we need less to increase production. Is it not appropriate to solidify regulations and enforcement to prevent that from ever happening again?
    You state that major changes need to be made to get oil flowing but you offer no details just a broad stroke generalization of what you would like to see as the end result with not even a hint of details.

    Like

  17. Ben Emery Avatar

    Russ,
    So the cited statistics are rigged on how much damage is being done by natural disasters over the last decade?
    How about the Ogallala Aquifer lying under the route for the Keystone Pipeline, do you see any danger there or is that just more hand wringing?
    Do you feel that 7 billion people can live, for long term, at the US standard of living?

    Like

  18. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE – I am very familiar with the concerns about what an unlikely oil leak would do to the Ogalala aquifer. They have been grossly overblown by the same factions that want us to collectively go back to the stone age.
    PaulE – given my 1257pm, what details would you like? Would one of them be BenE’s concerns about polluting the aquifer? Would another one of them be that the Obama administration has now revoked scores of working permits in West Virginia to mine coal, permits that the state is appealing to have reinstated? What about the fracking delays? Obama wants to play both sides of the street – delay/reduce energy production to play to his far left base, and lambast the right for then spending too much money buying foreign oil instead of supporting his hokey alternative green energy programs.

    Like

  19. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    You people just don’t get it. Made made solar panels are heating up our planet. We must stop this behavior of putting solar panels in full view of the Sun before we are battered, buttered and submerged in hot oil like a fried Twinkie at the Iowa State Fair.

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I guess George I’d like some idea of what environmental standards you would require to allow acceleration of oil and gas production. Since you favor eliminating the EPA how do you see this standards enforced?
    This is really the essential question in any discussion of the issue.

    Like

  21. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Don’t forget Robot insurance from Old Glory!
    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/229049/
    Any excuse for an increase in premium. That’s the business. If you don’t want the coverage, don’t buy it.
    The best immediate change to stem the Ogallala misuse is ending the farm subsidies that is pushing the pumping. It’s especially insane to throw away an ancient aquifer to grow subsidized corn to produce subsidized ethanol to adulterate gasoline with a net loss of energy in the entire cycle. Madness.

    Like

  22. Russ Steele Avatar
    Russ Steele

    Ben E,
    There is no proven connection between the damage done by natural disasters and climate change.
    I am not sure what the mechanism is that you fear will result in the pollution of the Ogallala Aquifer, which is 50 to 500 feet underground. The pipe is not going to be buried in the Ogallala Aquifer, it is going to be well above it. I agree with George, the concerns are overblown. That oil is highly valuable and the pipe line operators are not going to let is run out on the ground. Engineers have developed many monitoring and repaid response valves to monitor and manage the flow.
    I will be much easier for 7 billion of people to live in a warmer world. As the planet cool, the misery is going to increase and millions will starve as agriculture failures become more common due to a much quieter sun.

    Like

  23. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Russ may be comfortable with the idea that there is no connection between climate change and extreme weather events and or natural disasters, but a growing body of evidence disagrees with him and other climate change deniers, including NOAA and the US Defense Department. But I do think he makes one good point. Over emphasizing the climate connection serves no one.
    First I think it is important to recognize that those who believe in climate change, myself included, believe that the change will lead to increased unpredictability of climate related events such as droughts, heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and hurricanes. But tying a specific event to climate change is a dangerous assumption, and over emphasizing the role of climatic change relative to other drivers is likely to lead to increased skepticism. The science is still too vague to make a direct connection.
    But if there is a connection and we do not study it, recognize it for what it is, and attempt to mitigate the impacts if we can, we risk losing big time in terms of agricultural production, energy use and production, property and life. And mitigating these events, whether they are human caused due to climate change or not, benefits us. That makes acting on the assumption that there is no connection just as dangerous as acting on the assumption that there is.
    Lets take just a couple of examples.
    Lets say changes in climate lead to warm spells or heat waves. That will mean reduced agricultural yields in warmer regions due to heat stress at key development stages for crops, and increased risk of fire. This will in turn lead to increased demand for water for irrigation, and decreasing water quality in warmer regions due to algal blooms and other bacterial contaminants. Coupled with that will be increased risk of heat related mortality. It will also lead to increasing demand on power supplies to cool buildings and people. In forested areas it will lead to increased demand for fire fighting services to protect people and property. Any rational observer would agree that regardless of the cause, a trend toward warm spells or heat waves would lead us to shift our emphasis on specific infrastructure, such as water supply systems, water treatment, electrical grid, energy production, fire fighting capacity etc.
    Lets take another opposite example, heavy precipitation. If long term trends are for increased precipitation in California, this could lead to damage to crops, soil erosion, inability to cultivate land, and the concurrent impacts on water quality from both erosion and fertilizers in our soils. This also has a long term effect on disease vectors and human health. Our current water storage, conveyance and flood control systems are woefully unprepared to deal with these impacts. A classic example would be the practice in heavy rain years to dump water in the spring to make room for storage. Scientists in California have been tracking the probability of the ARK storm, or an extreme weather event where we see 10 feet of precipitation in a concentrated period of time, say 4-6 weeks. Such events have happened in our past, not necessarily having anything to do with climate change. Such an event could damage 1/4 of California’s housing stock and cost about $300 billion (a figure many so is low by a factor of 5). One does not have to look father in our past than the great flood of 1861-62 to see what the impacts could be. The Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys were covered in an area 300 miles long more than 20 miles wide. The Los Angeles Basin was flooded from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Palos Verde peninsula. We are talking hundreds of millions of acre feet of water here, not something we can contain, or channel or store.
    Now the policies and practices we would put in place to mitigate these events is the same, whether on believes they are driven by climate or not.
    On these two issues alone: the risk of heat waves leading to crop failure and fire or the risk of flood leading to property loss and loss of life, we are severely at risk and unprepared in California.

    Like

  24. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Frisch, name a catastrophic weather event caused by AGW that didn’t also occur before AGW. You’re just playing Chicken Little here.
    “Russ may be comfortable with the idea that there is no connection between climate change and extreme weather events and or natural disasters, but a growing body of evidence disagrees with him and other climate change deniers, including NOAA and the US Defense Department.”
    The climate has indeed changed over the past few thousand years. Also the last 500 million years. There’s no good evidence that CO2 has been a significant driver of these changes.
    The posited theory of positive feedbacks by blankets of clouds warming the planet after the introduction of anthropogenic CO2 was originally conceived as a way to help stave off the next ice age; this was during the global cooling scare that preceded the warming scare. That theory remains in dispute, there really is a growing body of peer-reviewed research indicating clouds cause negative feedbacks by reflecting away more heat from the sun than they trap below, and are a regulating feature of the climate system, not a source of instability. The reason the place has been such a nice place to live since our mammalian ancestors started scampering about 250 million years ago, in a 2000ppm CO2 atmosphere.
    I expect more instability among the deniers of climate realities in the coming year.

    Like

  25. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Geez Frisch, aren’t you tired of the relentless fear mongering?
    I know I am.

    Like

  26. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I guess the anti pipeline folks think there isn’t a shutoff valve.
    The global warming proponents are obviously losing when they start their screeching about weather event. My dad told me in detail about the typhoons he was in during WW2 in the Pacific. But, I guess that must have been AGW eh? Also, can the eco-fools tell us the affects a volcanic eruption has on the planet?

    Like

  27. Ben Emery Avatar

    RR Conservatives,
    What part of CONSERVE do you represent?
    For the ridiculous idea there is little potential for disaster is a refusal to learn from history.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/03/oil-spill-valves-idUSN0321388420100503
    U.S. mulls requiring remote shutoffs for oil rigs
    * Brazil, Norway require rigs to have shut-off triggers
    * US does not require shut-off triggers; some use them
    * $500,000 cost may seem more affordable after this spill
    By Tom Doggett and Timothy Gardner
    WASHINGTON, May 3 (Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers are focusing on whether lax government regulation that did not require BP to use a remote control “trigger” to shut an underwater pipe exacerbated the spreading oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
    A $500,000 acoustic trigger may have allowed workers escaping from the burning rig by boat to send a remote signal 5,000 feet below the water’s surface to close the valve and stop the oil.
    Instead, BP (BP.L) is using submersible robots, whose tiny metal arms so far have been unable to move the lever that would cut off the flow of crude.

    Like

  28. Ben Emery Avatar

    Greg,
    Just look at the record tornado’s (753), flooding, and wild fires of 2011. Did these things exist before, yes. BUT all of these hit records in numbers and in scale, which means most extreme.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html

    Like

  29. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Ben-
    “It is now accepted journalistic practice to make up completely random statistics without actually checking the historical record. China has had much worse floods in the past. Recent floods have been no where near “records.”
    Check the records Ben. Don’t just buy what is being sold to you!!!
    http://www.real-science.com/new-normal-making-flood-statistics
    Fool’s Gold
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite

    Like

  30. Ben Emery Avatar

    D King,
    Remove flooding from my statement then. Don’t change the subject.

    Like

  31. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “Remove flooding from my statement then. Don’t change the subject.”
    Morally Killing Al-Awlaki ?

    Like

  32. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Sorry, Ben, but no, the ‘extremes’ aren’t all that extreme.
    Here’s a link to a blogpost from Dr. Richard Pielke, Jr:
    “The data on events that have captured our attention this year — tornadoes, large-scale river floods (in unaltered river basins), and landfalling hurricanes — shows no evidence of trends in the direction of more extreme events. This should not be surprising, because even if we assume a strong signal in extreme events from human-caused climate change, the statistics suggest that it would take many decades, and probably longer, before such signals would be detected.”
    http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/07/extreme-weather-and-climate-ch.php#2022402
    In short, Ben, the sky is not falling, and even if it was, you wouldn’t know it by any measure of the weather events of the recent past.

    Like

  33. Ben Emery Avatar

    D King,
    I guess you missed my orignal comment. I put a question forward and was ingored.
    When does the inherited illegal policies of Bush become Obama’s? During a debate in 2010 I called out President Obama’s illegal policies, my democratic opponent was very upset that I would hold a democrat accountable equal to a republican.
    03 October 2011 at 02:56 PM
    “This sets a very dangerous precedent, an executive branch determining who is a terrorists and having the ability to end that persons life without due process, very dangerous. I don’t like it and our nation is in a steep decline where I can barely recognize it- Supreme Court decided elections, Pre-emptive strikes, torture, spying on its own citizens, the three ring circus at the airports, drones, secret prisons, everything about the patriot act, and so on…
    It is easy to hold convictions/ principles in good times but a true test of those convictions/ principles are during the hard times, we are failing as a nation.”

    Like

  34. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Now, what I think Ron Paul was concerned about was the “legal” killing of al Awlaki, not the morality of the killing, and I think he’s right to be wary. I’d like to see any future targeting of Americans abroad to pay better attention to dotting the Constitutional i’s and crossing the Constitutional t’s.
    Just “we got the bad guy, booyah!” is a bit light on the legal niceties. As long as we have a Constitution, let’s pretend it’s really there.

    Like

  35. Ben Emery Avatar

    Greg,
    Why the hyperbole? I’m an advocate for adapting our lifestyle to fit the times from which we live, not for an instant overhaul.

    Like

  36. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Ben, what hyperbole?
    You seem swayed greatly by the empty rhetoric of the Green left. There is no climate crisis. The best action for mankind regarding the climate is to have the courage to do nothing.
    Everything you want to do will kill more people than it will help.

    Like

  37. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Ben,
    “D King,
    I guess you missed my orignal comment. I put a question forward and was ingored.”
    …03 October 2011 at 02:56 PM
    No Ben, but I asked this almost 12 hours before you.
    “What is the process for declaring someone a traitor or terrorist?
    I would really like to hear from our friends on the left.
    Posted by: D. King | 03 October 2011 at 03:37 AM”
    To be fair, Steve F. mentioned it, but, I don’t think there is enough information to answer it.

    Like

  38. Ben Emery Avatar

    DKing,
    Article III Section III of the US Constitution outlines the process of determining and punishment for treason.
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Like

  39. Ben Emery Avatar

    Greg,
    The hyperbole is making a huge jump from my position to the sky is falling.

    Like

  40. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Jeez, Greg and D. King and of course Todd–one cannot win for losing here.
    First, I think I was out front on the constitutional ramifications of assassination issue over at Pelline’s blog, stating clearly that we need checks and balances on a President exerting this authority. In addition, I think I have answered the when does Obama become responsible question several times, he is responsible on national security policy and continuing a failed Bush/Cheney policy, and not responsible on domestic economic policy, inheriting a depression created by 40 years of gutting the middle class to enrich the few.
    Second, I was backing up Russ’ assertion that directly linking natural disasters to climate change is difficult.
    Third, I posted examples of how the link is actually irrelevant from a practical standpoint, the effects would be the same regardless, so one does not have to believe to be concerned. That’s not fear mongering, its simply the facts.
    Fourth, I gave examples of a few scenarios that are not only possible, they are likely given our history, and mitigating the impacts would be exponentially cheaper than suffering the damage.
    Finally, you may all believe that there is some global scientific conspiracy to promote AGW, but NOAA, the DOD, most of the private sector industries at risk from the impacts of AGW, and almost every professional scientific body in the world disagree with you.
    No one will ever change a mind here, so I am wondering what the point of the discussion really is, but for the lurkers I will postulate a few possible mitigation strategies and ways the Sierra Nevada could contribute to the solution:
    On heat waves and the stress on our electrical grid:
    1) Increase demand response capability for electrical grids so we do not have catastrophic failures
    2) Expand energy storage capabilities through thermal storage, groundwater storage, off stream impoundment, and stored biomass feedstock to increase base load capability
    3) Expand distributed generation capacity so a lower proportion of local use is dependent upon the western states and ISO controlled grid
    4) Reduce building use through promotion of green building (the average commercial structure in California has about a 35 year shelf life)
    5) Invest in urban greening and tree planting programs to lower urban island effects
    All of these are logical common sense disaster mitigation measures regardless of cause. In most cases the mitigation measures actually save us money in the long run and are cheaper to implement than what we are doing now.
    A similar set of measures could be designed around fire threat, flood control, food systems etc.

    Like

  41. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    We all have a tad of agreement on the issue of the Constitution regarding this killing but when a person is rejecting the country and its institutions and is in fact fighting for the enemy, the CinC as the military leader can make this decision and be protected under the Military Law. The rest of the last SF comment was BS.

    Like

  42. Ben Emery Avatar

    Steve F.,
    I pretty much have done the same thing. I never say we need to get off fossil fuels tomorrow but to develop alternatives saving the easy high yielding energy for the important things to move us forward.
    I generally don’t try and argue GW/CC because either one believes it or they don’t. So I point to the deniers bellwether “Industry”. Not good enough.

    Like

  43. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Please tell us what you mean by this statement you just made.
    “saving the easy high yielding energy for the important things to move us forward.”
    I think all of us deniers would appreciate the list of important things.

    Like

  44. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Ben, I think you’ve confused metaphor with hyperbole. For an example of hyperbole…
    “Steve, if you’ve been told once, you’ve been told a thousand times: AGW isn’t a conspiracy, just bad science groupthink.”
    Chicken Little remains a fine metaphor for AGW alarmism.

    Like

  45. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Ben, people are hard at work developing alternatives, and would even without billions of public funds sent down ratholes like Solyndra. That was a double whammy since those are federal loan guarantees… businesses that actually had a hope of turning a profit based on their merits didn’t get loans because No Risk trumps Some Risk every time.
    The problem with the political push towards alternative energies is that it all comes down to making energy EXPENSIVE to drive down consumption, and the government, when choosing winners and losers in the marketplace, has a wretched record of picking the wrong horses.

    Like

  46. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Billions are the new peanuts. I am sure you can find tens or hundreds of examples of billions of public funds spent subsidizing some industry or other. Solyndra is all set up and ready to make solar panels. The Gov. should just buy it like they did the automobile manufacturers. The Gov. could then just start making panels and flood the Chinese market with low cost panels.

    Like

  47. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Off topic, apologies to George. No, Solyndra is dead, and a billion $ in a tax rate subsidy, or tax credits/accelerated depreciation to buyers of their products, is a whole lot different than billions in guaranteed loans to companies guaranteed to fail.
    The Feds are playing Venture Capitalist for risky Green enterprises that fit the political bill. At least the real VC’s are playing with their own money, and have a track record of picking winners but starving losers as soon as they stumble.

    Like

  48. RL Crabb Avatar

    Ray Darby,The local solar advocate in The Union’s real estate section, says that the Solyndra model was flawed from the start. If the local Nevada County guy could see it coming, it sure doesn’t say much for the federal dimbulbs who are doling out the millions.

    Like

Leave a comment